Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Altai

You are ruled by Sharia

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Altai said:


For example, can you share a verse with different interpretations ? so we could examine it.


or what you did understand from my above sentence ? How many different ways you could interpret it ? 

Can (being able to do)
you (second person singular or plural)
share (noun or verb, impossible to be a noun according to English language rules)
a (quantity)
verse (part of a poem or article, holy book parts)
with (preposition)
different  (having features not the same as another)
interpretations (explanation of something based on its act or meanings)
? (punctuation to ask questions)


Now please interpret my sentence in different way/s ? 

Altai has arbitrarily removed words from a sentence an assigns them individual meanings she then claims can have only one meaning. She then reflects in her last question she doesn't understand that when she removes words from a sentence, they no longer are in a sentence. That said she also exhibited these errors in reasoning:

1-The meaning of a word does not just come from the word’s definition, it comes from the words used before and after it as well, or what is called contextual reference.

2-Words can have different meanings depending on how they are contextually referenced.

3-In Arabic the language of the Koran a word has more than just one meaning and socontextual referencing becomes even more crucial to understand what it means.

Now before I go further Altai’s attempt to argue that words can only have one meaning is an attempt to engage in what we call surface of literal interpretation, a fundamentalist method of interpretation that many Muslim scholars reject.

Arabic as a language is extremely fluid like water. Its meaning only takes shape when you read the many passages before and after it-the more you isolate the words, the more likely you distort and misunderstand the actual meaning they are given.

This is why for example Arabic lends itself to poetry. It makes it easier than say German in expressing a flowing evolving thought. German on the other hand requires you keep adding to the same word and it’s a tough tough language to emote with in writing.

Our languages as Wittgenstein and now modern psychology has proven literally shape how we think. The method we express ourselves actually develops like tree branches in our brains. If I take a young child after the age of 1.5 and before 4 and introduce him to many languages, music orworking with his or her hands, they develop a part of their brain in such a way where its neurons are much more elaborate so it looks like a much thicker tree branch than you and I.

Languages because of their rules and limitations can shape how we present emotions and repress emotions making people develop personalities different than those whose languages better allow them to emote.

That all said its ridiculous to isolate a word in English and suggest it has the same meaning in Arabic. Its also ridiculous to suggest it only has one meaning and you find that meaning by arbitrarily cutting it out of the body of the language it was in and assigning it one meaning. Look at your own body. An organ does many different things not just one thing depending on what its connected to.

Now let’s show even engaging in Altai’s ridiculous attempt to isolate words and demand they have only one meaning how stilly even that is.

Altai defined the word “can” in the following manner:

“ Can (being able to do) “
 

In fact the word “ can “ is derived from middle English and the term, “ know how to “ and old English where the word was originally spelled, “cunnan” and used to mean to understand something or know how to do something without having to be told. The Dutch word is “kunnen” and the German word is “konnen” and it is believed the word can be traced to the Latin word “gnoscere” and Greek word “gignoskein” both meaning “know”.

 

Right off the start ad given the above, knowing how to do something, or knowing something, and being able to do it, are NOT identical in meaning in Dutch, German or English.

I may know how to do something but am not able to do it because I am not available to do it because I am in another place, I have a disability, or my personal choice or inclination is to not do it.

So we’ve already established how the word changes.

When today I say I “can” do something,  it might mean I know how to do it,  I will do it, I might do it. To actually find out which one of these meanings is being applied I can’t remove the word from isolation from the sentence its in,   need to read the words before and after it, to find out its actual meaning.

There in a nut-shell is proof of why Altai’s attempt to arbitrarily assign one meaning to a word by removing it from its actual contextual reference is not only illogical but  foolish.

Here’s another vivid example of how foolish her exercise is In addition to “can” meaning “know how to” ,  “capable of”, “the possibility of doing something”, depending on how its contextually refenced it could also mean:

1-a cylindrical receptacle to hold liquids or preserves

2-a recessed lighting fixture

3-jail

4-toilet

5-buttocks

6- a destroyer (navy vessel).

So in summary Altai’s entire assertions in the above are gibberish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Altai said:

 So if you dont recognize a Quran verse as an Islamic rule, what do you recognize as an Islamic rule ?

Are all verses in the Quran a rule? I don't want to derail this thread into discussing the Quran in general (although that would be a good topic on its own), but I think there are plenty of verses that don't qualify as rules. I assume what you are really trying to get at is the Quran is the only valid source of Islamic rules. As you reference that there is no compulsion in the system, then if I have not submitted to Sharia I am not the one to accept what is and is not a rule. Will you answer directly: are those men who impose "Sharia law" on others breaking Sharia?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Altai said:

So Sharia defends the morality in war since last 1,5 milennium while many countries cannot do it today. 

 

I actually wanted to go back to the above comment made by Altai because I find it in my opinion a common misrepresentation used to recruit young people into extreme Muslim terrorist organizations.

For someone to state the above one must immediately ask, what world do they live in?

In the name of sharia law, how is sharia law used to defend morality in ISIS controlled regions, in Nigeria, Mali, Dahomey, Senegal, Chad,  Niger, Sudan, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran  Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, as we speak where people are being tortured, mutilated and terrorized.

Now is sharia law being used by Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, Intifada, to defend mortality?

How was it used to defend mortality in Europe and in the US?

Its defence of mortality has been used to:

1-justify using force, violence, terrorist tactics and the murdering of innocent people;

2-violation of any or all laws other than the ones the sharia law followers claim exist;

3-justify genocide in Sudan, mass murder of Coptic Christians in Egypt, genocide of Yazidis, Armenians Assyrians, Berbers, kurds, Bahaiis, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Jains, communists, trade unionists, Jews, gays, women.

It is absolutely inconceivable someone defending sharia law would make such a blanket statement knowing the wide spread terrorism and civil wars and war crimes now being carried out by Muslims in the name of Sharia law and what is more inconceivable that it kills far more Muslims than non Muslims.

It is inconceivable this individual believes Sharia law has a code of morality in war being applied in a just way.

 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Are all verses in the Quran a rule? I don't want to derail this thread into discussing the Quran in general (although that would be a good topic on its own), but I think there are plenty of verses that don't qualify as rules. I assume what you are really trying to get at is the Quran is the only valid source of Islamic rules. As you reference that there is no compulsion in the system, then if I have not submitted to Sharia I am not the one to accept what is and is not a rule. Will you answer directly: are those men who impose "Sharia law" on others breaking Sharia?

 


You can find your questions answer yourself. You just need to reply below questions and need to be honest. I hope you can do that ;)


What does Islam mean for a Muslim ? 


What does prophet mean for a Muslim and what is his duty ?


What does Islamic rule mean for a Muslim ? 










 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Altai said:


You can find your questions answer yourself. You just need to reply below questions and need to be honest. I hope you can do that ;)


What does Islam mean for a Muslim ? 


What does prophet mean for a Muslim and what is his duty ?


What does Islamic rule mean for a Muslim ? 










 

Impact isn't a Muslim.

Why don't YOU answer those questions?

Quote

What does Islam mean for a Muslim ? 


What does prophet mean for a Muslim and what is his duty ?


What does Islamic rule mean for a Muslim ? 

And you're still not answering his question to YOU:

Will you answer directly: are those men who impose "Sharia law" on others breaking Sharia?

Edited by Goddess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Altai said:


For example, can you share a verse with different interpretations ? so we could examine it.


or what you did understand from my above sentence ? How many different ways you could interpret it ? 

Can (being able to do)
you (second person singular or plural)
share (noun or verb, impossible to be a noun according to English language rules)
a (quantity)
verse (part of a poem or article, holy book parts)
with (preposition)
different  (having features not the same as another)
interpretations (explanation of something based on its act or meanings)
? (punctuation to ask questions)


Now please interpret my sentence in different way/s ? 

I honestly can't quote anything from the Koran.But the fact remains,if the Koran is not open to widely different interpretations,how do you explain the existence of radical Islam?How about moderate Muslims?Are Muslims treated equally all over the world?Are some Muslim countries much stricter than others?You might want to read about Tarek Fatah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ironstone said:

I honestly can't quote anything from the Koran.But the fact remains,if the Koran is not open to widely different interpretations,how do you explain the existence of radical Islam?How about moderate Muslims?Are Muslims treated equally all over the world?Are some Muslim countries much stricter than others?You might want to read about Tarek Fatah.

Bang on. You won't get an answer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will note in the responses from Altai which vary from fragmented broken English to perfect English, there is a constant and continuing reference from her telling others they are liars or no being truthful but she is.

That’s very interesting because as per sharia law “taqiyya” or lying, is permitted and even obligatory in specific situations. A classic example of when “lying” is acceptable is seen today when “shia” Muslims pretend to be “Sunni” Muslims. For example its done in Saudi Arabia by Shias, because Shias are defined in Saudi Arabia as heretics, traitors and infidels. Inversely, Sunnis  practice taqiyy when they find themselves living as a minority.

Now of course Altia won’t discuss or disclose taquiyya, the act of lying and when its deemed acceptable in Sharia law. If she did that, then her comments that Muslims don’t like would fall apart not to mention her attempts to portray only Muslims truthful.

Today and she will never acknowledge it, taquiyya or lying is widespread in the world of Islam.  All its sects practice it and when they don’t like Ismailis or Amdiyyah Muslims, they are defined as non Muslims.

Koran 3:28, 2:173, 2:185, 4:29, 22:78, 40:28 all set out when lying is acceptable and in Koran 3:28 it states, “ Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels instead of nob believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah-unless you but guard yourselves against them taking precautions.”

If you read the above Sharia law makes it quite acceptable for Muslims to lie to infidels if they believe it is for the better good of making the world Muslim and defeating infidels and either killing them or converting them all and that is a crucial  fact to keep in mind when anyone let alone Altai poses as a Muslim preacher claiming truth and speaking down to the non believer. Sharia law allows her to lie and deceive.

For those of us who have lived in the Muslim world where its not separated from state, we are well aware of this. What makes it interesting though is Altai made the claim that Sharia law practices morality in war when she is fully aware taqiyya is a perfectly acceptable technique of war. You see in her world, lying as long as you are Muslim and the person you lie to is not Muslim and its done to achieve Muslim victory and betterment, then its moral and I would suggest to you therefore that when this person or any Muslim poses as a preacher you be aware of the rules you are working with and that is the person preaching to you can and is a liar because her religion allows her to be.

There’s also another technique Muslim preachers can use to mislead you ansd it comes from the Koran verse 2:105 which allows a Muslim to ignore earlier sayings from Muhammed and go with the later sayings of Muhammed if they contradict one another. So using this technique Muslim preachers quote the older sections, and then if they don’t make sense, jump to newer ones to avoid them.

Now I wish to address the out and out falsehood I claim Altai stated when she claimed Sharia law engages in morality in how it is applied to war.

In passage 8:39 of the Koran which I point out is universally agreed to by all schools of Sunni jurisprudence,  it is believed war against non Muslims, not just Jews but all non Muslims, (atheists, Bahaiis, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Siekhs, agnostics, Christians, atheists, Bahaiis, Zoroastreans, Yazidi, Assyrian, Berber, Druze, Kurd, Wiccans, etc.) will continue indefinitely until such time the entire world’s people convert and submit to Islam.

So what Altai will not tell you is that Sharia law is the formula the Muslims will use to enforce this submission using state apparatus to do so. Not only that, Sharia law specifically believes and states in that section that there is never any peace with Muslims until world Islamic submission is achieved. At best you can get a temporary treaty with Muslims on their consent.

What Altai will not adit is that jihad, is the religious duty to be carried out by every Muslim to help turn the world Muslim because until all people are Muslim the world remains imperfect and morally diseased and a danger to Muslims.

In fact when Muhammad went to war he stated that ten years was the longest Muslims could remain in peace with non Muslims as per the Treaty of Hudaibya which occurred about 628 AD when he was at war with his Quraish opponents. In fact Muhammed broke it after 2 years, justifying his breaking it stating that the only purpose of a peace treaty (hudna) is to give Muslims time to regroup and strengthen themselves so they can return to fighting when they are stronger. This is why Muhamed said in the Hadith, “ if TItake an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath.” (Sahih Bukhari V7B67N427.) Please understand that because years later people have accused the state of Israel for refusing to sign peace treaties with the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hezbollah.

In fact when Israel did sign a comprehensive peace treaty with Yasir Arafat, Arafat  was later  caught in South Africa when he was thought he was off radio, stating- “we may have signed the peace treaty with them but we have no intention of following it..” When he got caught red-handed admitting his lie, he then quoted the Treaty of Hyudaibya and what Muhammed said, and then stated Israel and the US should have realized he was lying all along and as a loyal Muslim he was allowed to lie to infidel and use the treaty as a cover to re-arm. He quoted the laws of Islam and this is a vivid example of why when people who do not understand Islam, lecture Israelis to sign peace treaties with such Muslims, they don’t understand the treaties mean nothing to those Muslims, not a damn thing.

This is why when Iran signed the treaties it did with the US and Europe over nuclear weapons it could lie and it does not consider itself ever bound by the agreements it entered into. Anyone who understands Muslim, especially Muslims, understand this. This is why the Sunni Muslim world is now in a proxy war in Yemen, Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Chad, Niger, Tunisia, Algeria, Mali, Malawi, Dahomey, Senegal, Tanzania, Kenya, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, China, Russia, Pakistan Afghanistan Bangla Desh, Turkey,  Chechnya, Croatia-Serbia-Albania, Nigeria, Iran, Sunni and Shia Muslims engage in war against each other and against Zoroastreans, Christians, Jews, Bahais, Kurds Yazidi, Assyrian, on and on and on. There is no truth to rely on. Words are not binding between Muslims at war with one another or others. That I would suggest is sharia law and makes it immoral.

The same PLO leaer Yasir Arafat who admitted who ripped up his peace treaties saying they meant nothing was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize! The same Barak Obama whose family were all Muslim on his father's side and his step-father, was brought upo in Indonesia and went to a Muslim school.  He signed a treaty with Iran he knows is not binding  and helped Turkey arm and train Sunni  Islamic mercenaries to topple Ghaddafi in Libya and then Assad in Syria which then turned into ISIL and he too was awarded  a Nobel Peace prize.

 Where was Obama when his half brother became the no. 1 financier of the Sudanese government getting in money so it could wage a civil war to wipe out Christians and animists in the South of Sudan? I tell you where Obama was, He was in the same place he was when Boca Ration in Nigeria started wiping out and is still wiping out Christians. He was in the same place he was when his ally President Morsi of Egypt allied with President Erdogan of Turkey called on Egyptians to kill en masse Ciptic Christians and Assyrians. He was in the same place he was when Turkey allied with Iran, engaged in chemical warfare against the Kurds. I would argue he ventured into the same world Altai now lives in, one that is called DENIAL and I do not mean the Nile River in Egypt.

Honour, morality in Sharia law?  What absolute horse crap. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have constitutions quoting Islam and sharia law as their justification. They make it clear by their very constitutions their goal is based on sharia law, the need to turn the world Muslim and they see taking back Israel, the West Bank, Jordan and the Gaza as but Part 1 in this war. It is a favourite tactic of extremist Muslims to smokescreen and lie about their true agenda because they can lie. Its permissible. When you live in a Muslim world, the message they speak to Muslims is far different than the one they say to non Muslims. They start with verse 60:4 of the Koran, one, Altai will never acknowledge because it states “So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility-that is battle-ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed, or if Muslims are at the point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart that is great apostasy! Such then is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity and hatred, directed from the Muslim to the infidel, is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.” It also states: “We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us-till you believe in Allah alone”.

I also remind you the Koran says if a Muslim finds themselves in a compromised state by an infidel, they can lie to protect themselves. I also remind you the enmity, the fierce hostility from the heart, the battle that never ceases, is a religious obligation and being hateful of non Muslims is called an act of kindness.

Now we in Canada believe its wrong to say all Muslims think like that. I myself am the first to argue we must be careful not to stereotype all Muslims as thinking this way just because sharia law and the Koran say this. I mean after all does the Bible not say hateful things and we don’t follow its hateful passages. Also we hear the argument that if a Muslim is extremist or terrorist then we should not call them Muslim anymore because Islam does not say that. The fact is however it does state that and it will b e up to brave Muslims to stand up, speak up and denounce such beliefs, the way Christians once did with their own religion and Jews did before that.  The fact is we don’t know at this point how to distinguish a modern, moderate Muslim who has rejected this part of their religion from the extremists.

What we do have we are  people like Altai posing as they do as young modern girls in image but at the same time embracing  archaic Sharia law and leaders and evidencing blatant electivity in what they will discuss.

What I do argue is that secular Muslims, moderate Muslims here in Canada and across the world should speak out and denounce Altai or anyone else hijacking their religion and posing it as she does.

May I better not hold my breath on this forum waiting for that to happen.

Edited by Rue
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acts...a book written after Jesus's death. So you know...if Jesus was alive he woulda said this...or done that...

Jesus had only one REAL message.

"Go and do thou likewise."

The rest is frill.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Jesus had only one REAL message.

"Go and do thou likewise."

He plagiarized that from an ancient Egyptian proverb quoting the goddess of truth and justice (Ma'at) from around 2000 years earlier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ?Impact said:

He plagiarized that from an ancient Egyptian proverb quoting the goddess of truth and justice (Ma'at) from around 2000 years earlier. 

 

I doubt he had access to the Internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I doubt he had access to the Internet.

Things can't last thousands of years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2017 at 3:59 PM, Altai said:

 
You are coward and this is a shame. Prove us you are not a coward.

It is important to understand that Rue and I don't see eye to eye on many many things.

Rue may be a complete ass at times, but he is no coward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constitutional commission of Syria at the inter-Syrian talks going on in Astana. Once established, a new commission is to deal with the main legislation of Syria, which will satisfy opponents in future.

I am convinced that iran-turkey-russia are not going to write Constitution for Syrian people. They hope that negotiators might find some of the ideas interesting and these ideas could be discussed between Syrians. And the armed opposition still is not going to discuss this draft Constitution offered by Russia.

IMAGE LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15.03.2017 at 7:20 PM, ironstone said:

I honestly can't quote anything from the Koran.But the fact remains,if the Koran is not open to widely different interpretations,how do you explain the existence of radical Islam?How about moderate Muslims?Are Muslims treated equally all over the world?Are some Muslim countries much stricter than others?You might want to read about Tarek Fatah.

The non-Muslim persons which you call with a wrong term as "Radical Muslim", who claims of being Muslims but performs anti-Islamic (called as Mushrik in Quran) acts are only a number %0.0001 of total Muslim population. I am sure you can find more person in the World who claims that 2X2 is 5 and it does not mean its 5. Another fact is almost all of these persons use "stories" to justify their actions, despite even stories does not justify their actions as I gave examples about women issue a few posts ago.

 

Edited by Altai
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are ruled by Sharia, because Sharia orders to stamp thieves by cutting their hands to bring a scar or cutting off their hands complately. As like many countries in the World applies with various ways. Countries stamp thieves, many times with keeping criminal records of them which prevents them to life freely as before they were criminals. 


You are not aware of it but your logic will always bring you to the Sharia. You are ruled bu Sharia. Deal with it ^_^

Da daaaaaaaaaaaa, dara dara daaa dat dat datt :lol:

IMAGE LINK

 

Edited by Charles Anthony
image link:https://www.youtube.com/embed/wWSAI9d3Vxk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Altai said:

Sharia orders to stamp thieves by cutting their hands to bring a scar or cutting off their hands complately. As like many countries in the World applies with various ways. Countries stamp thieves, many times with keeping criminal records of them which prevents them to life freely as before they were criminals.

Hacking off body parts is permanent. We do not do such things in the west if a person is found guilty of a crime like theft. They get a criminal record, yes, and depending on the crime it often stays with them for the rest of their life. The method of dealing with criminals in the west is to try and rehabilitate the person. That means teach them to renounce their criminal behaviour and return to society as a functional person. Having both hands and both feet still available, they are able to work and support themselves, and their family if they have one. People make mistakes (crimes...) but can learn to repent. They can also be forgiven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2017 at 9:36 AM, Rue said:

When today I say I “can” do something,  it might mean I know how to do it,  I will do it, I might do it. To actually find out which one of these meanings is being applied I can’t remove the word from isolation from the sentence its in,   need to read the words before and after it, to find out its actual meaning.

There in a nut-shell is proof of why Altai’s attempt to arbitrarily assign one meaning to a word by removing it from its actual contextual reference is not only illogical but  foolish.

Here’s another vivid example of how foolish her exercise is In addition to “can” meaning “know how to” ,  “capable of”, “the possibility of doing something”, depending on how its contextually refenced it could also mean:

1-a cylindrical receptacle to hold liquids or preserves

2-a recessed lighting fixture

3-jail

4-toilet

5-buttocks

6- a destroyer (navy vessel).

So in summary Altai’s entire assertions in the above are gibberish.

Your treatise is a collection of half truths, some truths and pure gibberish. In short, a dog's breakfast.

To try to unbundle it all is for another whole thread. 

Suffice it to say, you attempt to discredit her message by attacking what is obviously her second, third or whatever language. 

That is simply despicable. 

Edited by hot enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Hacking off body parts is permanent. We do not do such things in the west

But the west does do such things to folks that are not of the west. How many body parts do you think got hacked off in the, almost unknown about, Indonesian genocide by US proxies. The US overthrew Sukarno and installed, as they always do their own brutal, right wing vicious dictator, Suharto. 

 ... in four months,
five times 
as many
people died in
Indonesia as in
Vietnam in
twelve years."
-- Bertrand Russell, 1966

That number is estimated to be at least 750,000 people. Their killers brag to this day about how they loved to watch American gangster movies to get new ideas on how to butcher people; beheadings, garroting, dismemberment alive, just use your imagination, they did  it. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hot enough said:

But the west does do such things to folks that are not of the west. How many body parts do you think got hacked off in the, almost unknown about, Indonesian genocide by US proxies. The US overthrew Sukarno and installed, as they always do their own brutal, right wing vicious dictator, Suharto. 

 ... in four months,
five times 
as many
people died in
Indonesia as in
Vietnam in
twelve years."
-- Bertrand Russell, 1966

That number is estimated to be at least 750,000 people. Their killers brag to this day about how they loved to watch American gangster movies to get new ideas on how to butcher people; beheadings, garroting, dismemberment alive, just use your imagination, they did  it. 
 

Indonesia is a Muslim country, friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Indonesia is a Muslim country, friend.

Are you associating the violence of the Suharto regime with religion ?  Not knowing a ton of details on this, I can state that the conventional take on this period/geography is that it was about oil, communism and global geopolitics.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Are you associating the violence of the Suharto regime with religion ?  Not knowing a ton of details on this, I can state that the conventional take on this period/geography is that it was about oil, communism and global geopolitics.  

That has not changed in this day and age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

That has not changed in this day and age.

That's a good point.  Back to the main thread - if oil weren't involved, I suspect we'd ignore backwards countries and/or get involved somewhat if popular support shamed us into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's a good point.  Back to the main thread - if oil weren't involved, I suspect we'd ignore backwards countries and/or get involved somewhat if popular support shamed us into it.

The main thread has nothing to do with oil ...  *looks back*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...